Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

To Buy Or Not To Buy, That Is The Question.

Today I struggle with the question of whether to continue purchasing an expensive periodical or rely on the electronic version that is available on WestlawNext.

This issue comes up frequently enough -- should we continue to buy the more stable print format, or should we rely on the access that we have through our other online subscriptions (like Lexis & Westlaw)? I find that a lot of the print periodicals have duplicative coverage on one or both of the major databases.

The particular print periodical in question had a price increase of 19% from 2012 to 2013. It went from nearly $2100 per year to $2400 per year. It's a great resource, in theory, but it is not widely used in print.

The problem with relying on the online databases for access is that material comes and goes so frequently. The resource could be available one day, and then with no prior notice, there may be a dispute with the licensing agreement, and the resource is pulled from the database. Or, more recently, many print publishing houses have closed or been sold, so the availability of the material is in flux.

In addition, there are issues with library archiving. To date, the print version is still the most stable version. If a library buys in print, the library always owns the material and can archive the material as the library sees fit. If a library signs a licensing agreement with a database, generally, that database will have a substantial archive of past issues. But as soon as the library decides to end its subscription to the database, there goes the archive along with it. Most database licensing agreements give the right to access information, but these licensing agreements, generally, do not give full ownership rights of the material.

Electronic access and licensing agreement issues are still in transition. We are all trying to understand the implications and what it means for collection development. In the present case, I will recommend that we cancel the expensive print periodical in favor of electronic access on WestlawNext because the print periodical is not widely used by our patron base. This will free up more money to buy monographs that are not available electronically.

The current version of Standard 601(3)(a) was developed during the Comprehensive Review as a method of involving a law library in the process of strategic planning required of a law school. It was envisioned that the planning and assessment taking place for a law school (under what was then Standard 203) would incorporate the work done by the library under this new Standard. To ensure that incorporation, it was decided that a written assessment should be completed by the library. However, when the requirement for strategic planning for a law school was removed during a later phase of the Comprehensive Review, no change was made to the new Standard 601. As a result, the library community has been left…

Law libraries are in the information business. To act as superior guides to this information, we must also be in the people business. We must be concerned with the people who seek our information. And we must be concerned with the people who guide those seekers to the information (i.e., our staff).

Contrary to popular belief, it's not easy to be a staff person in the rigid hierarchy of an academic law library. Particularly at a time when law libraries are facing increased budget pressures that require staff to do much more with much less. This is especially challenging with longtime staff who have seen their jobs change dramatically since they were hired. Many of these folks were not formally trained in librarianship, and they may be resistant to the flexibility needed in today's law library.

Given these challenges, how do we motivate our staff to be the very best guides to our information?

To that end, there was an enlightening program at the AALL Annual Conference in 2013 t…

As we further consider how to train future lawyers for the Algorithmic Society and develop the quality of thinking, listening, relating, collaborating, and learning that will define smartness in this new age, law schools must reach beyond their storied walls.

In law, we must got beyond talking about algorithmic implications to actually help shape algorithmic performance. We need lawyers and programmers to work together to create a sound "machine learning corpus." There's potential for an entirely new subfield to emerge if given the right support. With many law school attached to major research universities, it's a great place to start this cross-pollination and interdisciplinary work.

This type of interdisciplinary work would help to satisfy the career aspirations of advanced-degree seekers but also the wishes of many college presidents, deans, and faculty members who see an interdisciplinary professional education as a path to greater relevance, higher enrollments,…